mañjughoṣamaṇi wrote:There are many people who advocate human rights, not, in the vein of your arguments, because they are cosmologically based, but because they believe they provide the best and most reasonable standard of living in a globalized world?

In actual practice though such idealism doesn't work out.

For example, retailers in the west still routinely sell products from overseas which are known to have been produced by exploited labor, often women and children. Where are your human rights there? Even if some people boycott those retailers or brands, Wal-Mart still chugs along unscathed.

Despite all our best hopes, countries like the US, UK and Canada still ignore human rights when it is convenient for them to do so. "Human rights violations" are transformed into "collateral damage".

When some enemy state like Iran or China needs to be bullied and put in their place, they cite "human rights" issues against them and proceed to strong arm them.

Clarence wrote:So what. In India, before the British came, gay sex was very normal.

Gay sex is still rather normal, albeit criminalized at the moment.

In any case, gay sex and gay marriage are two different things.

Truthfully, you sound like those preachers in the U.S. who claim that earthquakes are punishments from above because of people's "bad bad" behavior.

I have tried to emphasize that I feel it wise to consider historical norms in all social policy decisions. The potential consequences of not doing so might prove disastrous.

Do you truly think that gender is so clearly delineated in the higher realms?

It depends. Indra has plenty of female consorts.

I don't think so and thus, besides the human rights argument, there are definitely multiple Buddhist arguments to be made against your, and many Asian Buddhist, views. Most of which are culturally defined anyway.

Like I said, I'm just being orthodox. I am one of the good guys on this side of the pond.

mañjughoṣamaṇi wrote:There are many people who advocate human rights, not, in the vein of your arguments, because they are cosmologically based, but because they believe they provide the best and most reasonable standard of living in a globalized world?

In actual practice though such idealism doesn't work out.

Very few ideals work out perfectly but they provide a guiding framework. Some of us believe in expanding notions of human rights from the narrow focus on negative rights (freedom from imposition on speech, limits to who we can marry or not) to positive rights as well (right to work, housing, healthcare, universal minimum wage).

For example, retailers in the west still routinely sell products from overseas which are known to have been produced by exploited labor, often women and children. Where are your human rights there? Even if some people boycott those retailers or brands, Wal-Mart still chugs along unscathed.

This isn't news, and some people in the west would like to see the capitalist shell game of hiding labor costs with geography changed (see positive rights above).

Despite all our best hopes, countries like the US, UK and Canada still ignore human rights when it is convenient for them to do so. "Human rights violations" are transformed into "collateral damage".

Yes, this is true, but irrelevant to discussing civil rights for homosexual couples. That some people in power abuse a notion for their own gain doesn't discredit the value of the idea, it simply requires more scrutiny. For those who care to it is quite easy to access that type of information so they can make their minds up when human rights are being used as part of an imperialist project.

When some enemy state like Iran or China needs to be bullied and put in their place, they cite "human rights" issues against them and proceed to strong arm them.

This type of criticism should be universally leveled when violations occur. Again, a need for oversight and an attempt at a degree of objectivity doesn't negate the value of proposing human rights as an organizing principle.

Malcolm wrote:Sure they do. But in your cynicism, you just don't want to see it.

Or perhaps you don't want to admit the failure of your cherished ideology.

I don't see that there are any failures in the principles of democracy and equal rights; I certainly will allow that the United States has not in every instance lived up to its own rhetoric. Nevertheless, people are more free now in history than they ever have been before, and this I attribute to liberal democracy and free market economics which go hand in hand.

Indrajala wrote:It deviates from historical norms to the point of being extreme and unprecedented.

To say it goes against principles of the cosmos is just to say it is contrary to established observable norms in the cosmos which is humanity and nature.

As I had pointed out previously, marriage is different in different cultures and countries both now and in the past. If you are defining marriage in terms of judeo/christian type, then yes it is unprecedented (I wouldn't say extreme), however marriages meaning and value, even in the west, have changed.

To say an extreme change goes against the cosmos is again wrong because we have extreme change in nature, sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad. But again I honestly don't believe gay marriage is extreme.

Even established norms have changed such as slavery and the death penalty.

So, to recap, we have examples of gay unions in history (concept of marriage is debatable as I have stated)We have extreme changes in history.We have unprecedented changes in history.And we have changes to the established norm in history.So I really fail to see why gay marriage is so different.

We want to push life around. We want to introduce new liberal views to reflect our desires and perhaps there's a wish to also improve society. In the larger community every time we take a step forward there is something unforeseen that raises its head.Not that long ago society seemed to be heading towards an alternative path, music and evocative words had a huge impact on most of us. Now, somehow the neocons, the corporations, economists have taken over the globe and something quite unpleasant even sinister seems to be at play here.The environment is in jeopardy, the forests are dwindling and those still standing are waiting to be logged, tribals are disappearing, more and more people are now unemployed, Except for China, manufacturing in most countries has simply died. All the promise of the Arab Spring has evaporated, Egypt is a basket case and Syria is in total turmoil.A large slice of the American population cannot bear to even give basic health cover to its poor. Yet the word democratic rights is being trumpeted at every opportunity.Alot of politicians are exposed as simply being toxic or self serving at best.Alot of people don't even know whats good or right for themselves let alone others.....whether it be the man in the street, feminists, socialists, gays or straight; the mainstream media is simply a mouthpiece for powerful forces which we are not party or privy too.Are we making informed choices or being manipulated and led by the nose?What are informed choices anyway as ultimately we are prisoners of our desires, conditioning and vasanas.Back to Buddhism, back to meditation and stilling the mind.

greentara wrote:We want to push life around. We want to introduce new liberal views to reflect our desires and perhaps there's a wish to also improve society. In the larger community every time we take a step forward there is something unforeseen that raises its head.Not that long ago society seemed to be heading towards an alternative path, music and evocative words had a huge impact on most of us. Now, somehow the neocons, the corporations, economists have taken over the globe and something quite unpleasant even sinister seems to be at play here.The environment is in jeopardy, the forests are dwindling and those still standing are waiting to be logged, tribals are disappearing, more and more people are now unemployed, Except for China, manufacturing in most countries has simply died. All the promise of the Arab Spring has evaporated, Egypt is a basket case and Syria is in total turmoil.A large slice of the American population cannot bear to even give basic health cover to its poor. Yet the word democratic rights is being trumpeted at every opportunity.Alot of politicians are exposed as simply being toxic or self serving at best.Alot of people don't even know whats good or right for themselves let alone others.....whether it be the man in the street, feminists, socialists, gays or straight; the mainstream media is simply a mouthpiece for powerful forces which we are not party or privy too.Are we making informed choices or being manipulated and led by the nose?What are informed choices anyway as ultimately we are prisoners of our desires, conditioning and vasanas.Back to Buddhism, back to meditation and stilling the mind.

One branch of my family tree is from American Native Piegan Blackfoot tribe. We have something called the Two Spirit person. From wiki

Third gender roles historically embodied by two-spirit people include performing work and wearing clothing associated with both men and women. The presence of male two-spirits "was a fundamental institution among most tribal peoples."[1] According to Will Roscoe, male and female two-spirits have been "documented in over 130 North America tribes, in every region of the continent."[2]

Back in the day I would of been a prized catch being a woman that acts like a man and is attracted to men. My American culture calls girls like me Tom Boys. Some tribes rejected the two spirit person but most tribes used their talents to make the tribe healthier and stronger. Two spirit people make superior parents, healers, shaman, and artists.

Apologies to everyone who already knows about this, kindly skip this lengthy post. I'm adding it here so those who think things are just "opinions" can have the chance to see the rational arguments. Some should pay particular attention to "Claim: It’s Important To Proceed With Caution On Same-Sex Marriage" where the state was unable to cite any arguments to justify such fears.

In the United States, in short, it has been conclusively proven again and again that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

HH Dalai Lama has often spoke of using reason and logic in such matters, which is why though he thinks it a personal matter at base it is a civil rights matter at large in society and has come out in favor of such unions.

Indrajala wrote:

Malcolm wrote:Like all bigots, you have no rational basis for your claims. You might as well be saying that christians should not marry jews.

If this were so, what rational basis is there for claiming same sex couples should be able to marry?

If we are all just basing our arguments on our feelings and opinions, then nobody can claim a rational basis.

Your willful ignorance amounts to a kind of perverse neglect of rational thought in this matter. Since you refuse to read the ample public record where arguments against gay marriage have been annihilated, here is just one summary, from the recent decision by a federal judge in Utah.

**********

"How A Federal Judge In Utah Adeptly Dismantled All Of The Arguments Against Marriage Equality"

Friday’s decision by a federal judge overturning Utah’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (Amendment 3) represents the first major legal victory for marriage equality since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In that case, United States v. Windsor, the Court only addressed the question of federal recognition of marriage, and though procedural rulings in cases in other state have cited it, the Utah decision is the first time Windsor was cited to completely overturn a state law banning same-sex marriage. In an extremely readable opinion, Judge Robert Shelby — an Obama appointee whose nomination was supported by both Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) — explained not only why Windsor applied, but why the state’s arguments against same-sex marriage fell flat.

As is playing out in other suits across the country, both the plaintiffs — three same-sex couples — and the state cited Windsor in their arguments. According to Utah state officials, Windsor affirmed the right of states to choose how to define marriage, but the plaintiffs’ legal team pointed out that the case wasn’t actually decided on such federalism grounds. Instead, Justice Kennedy wrote that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment, denying due process and equal protection to same-sex couples. In his opinion, Shelby noted that the 14th Amendment provides the same due process and equal protection at the state level, and just as they did for interracial couples in Loving v. Virginia, “individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict.” Ironically, he went on to cite Justice Scalia’s dissent in the DOMA case to reinforce its impact in this regard.

In U.S. case law, equal protection has sometimes been applied through what’s called “heightened scrutiny” for some classes of people who might be targeted for discrimination, such as women or people of color. Thus, if a law is found to be unfairly affecting a group of people on the basis of their sex or race, as examples, the government is held to a higher standard to defend that law. Aside from a few lower court rulings, however, there is not federal precedent to apply heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation, and as Shelby noted in his opinion, he is bound by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence that decidedly did not apply such scrutiny. Thus, he could only consider Utah’s marriage ban according to a “rational basis review,” which basically means that if the government could provide any convincing justification for Amendment 3 — even if it’s not the purpose for which it was originally passed — then the law must be upheld. But, Shelby noted, heightened scrutiny was not necessary to impact the outcome of this case, because “the law discriminates on the basis of sexual identity without a rational reason to do so.” With Windsor in hand, he proceeded to unpack and dismantle each of the arguments the state made.

Claim: Same-Sex Couples Are Not Qualified To Marry Because They Cannot Procreate

Conservatives have long arbitrarily asserted that a limitation to man-woman unions is inherent in the very definition of “marriage,” suggesting that “same-sex marriage” is thus an oxymoron. Utah state officials offered their own variation of this claim, arguing that same-sex couples were not “qualified” to marry because they can not naturally reproduce with each other. Shelby observed that there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who cannot have children or choose not to, while at the same time there are over 3,000 same-sex couples already raising children in Utah. The state’s double standard played out humorously during oral arguments earlier this month, with Philip S. Lott representing Utah (transcript is abridged here):

THE COURT: Is it the state’s position that it would be constitutional, if the state chose to do so, to enact a regulation or law requiring that individuals who wish to marry submit to fertilization testing to prove that they’re capable of procreation? Is that constitutional? Because marriage — you’re relying on procreation as an essential characteristic of that union or that right? [...]LOTT: I don’t believe it would be constitutional, also because there is Supreme Court precedent saying that the right to not procreate is a fundamental right. So the state would not do that and would not be able to do that. [...]THE COURT: Before we leave that last hypothetical, let me pose it a different way and see if the answer is any different. Could the state of Utah constitutionally restrict marriage — deny marriage licenses say to post-menopausal women?LOTT: I think the answer again is that the state’s interest in fostering procreation within certain parameters is not intended to exclude other relationships that potentially are going to involve raising a child. If you have a post-menopausal woman, she may not herself be able to have a child, but that doesn’t mean that she’s not going to have a grandchild that she may be in a position to need to raise or a niece or a nephew, and so the state’s interest is still present.THE COURT: So is it something different than an individual’s actual ability to procreate? That’s not the fundamental characteristic? It’s the likelihood that the person may find themselves in the position of raising a child?LOTT: Yes.THE COURT: Okay. How are same-sex couples different in that respect?LOTT: Well, a gay or lesbian person obviously can reproduce, but it’s not going to occur within a same-sex marriage. [...] The simple answer to that is that procreation is the difference. A same-sex couple is not going to produce children.THE COURT: Okay, so post-menopausal women in the state of Utah do not have a constitutional right to marry, as an example, or people who by virtue of surgical operations or genetics or whatever reason — if they can’t procreate, there’s not a fundamental right to marry. That’s the state’s view about the defining difference between the fundamental right that the plaintiffs are seeking here and those that are recognized by the Supreme Court?LOTT: No.

In his decision, Shelby pointed out that the Supreme Court has recognized “important attributes of marriage that exist besides procreation,” which is why, for example, prison inmates have been allowed to marry even if they are unable to consummate their marriages. “These attributes of marriage,” he wrote, “are as applicable to same-sex couples as they are to opposite-sex couples.”

Claim: Same-Sex Marriage Is A “New Right”

Riffing on the claim that “marriage” only means — and has only ever meant — a man and a woman, Utah also argued that same-sex marriage is a “new right,” not the same “fundamental right” to marry that courts have previously affirmed. Comparing this case to Loving v. Virginia, which addressed the question of interracial marriage, Shelby noted that the right to marry includes the right to choose who to marry. Same-sex couples, he concluded, are seeking “the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.” Given that straight people are as unlikely to exercise the right to marry someone of the same-sex as gay people are to marry someone of the opposite-sex, both are “therefore simply manifestations of one right — the right to marry — applied to people with different sexual identities.”

Shelby couched this conclusion in his observation that much has been learned about homosexuality and the experience of people with same-sex orientations, which must be properly contextualized:

While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex.

In other words, there is no such thing as “gay marriage” or “straight marriage”; there is only marriage.

Claim: Tradition And History Have Always Recognized Marriage As Between One Man And One Woman

Shelby was quick to brush off the suggestion that historic understandings of marriage had any relevance in this decision. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws criminalizing same-sex sexual relations (“sodomy laws”), he noted that the equal protection clauses in the Constitution did not specify which identities were protected and which were not:

Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding.

This assertion carries some of the same weight that a “heightened scrutiny” review would have: people with same-sex orientations exist, have a distinct place in society, and must be provided the same protections under the law in a context that fits those experiences.

Claim: Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Discriminate On The Basis Of Sex

In addition to arguing that the marriage amendment discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, the plaintiffs also made the case that it discriminates on the basis of sex, because it prohibits a man from marrying another man but not from marrying a woman. The state replied that it does not discriminate as such because both sexes are equally prohibited from marrying the same-sex. Judge Shelby was not convinced by this claim, because the exact same argument failed when used in Loving to defend a ban on interracial marriage:

In Loving, Virginia argued that its anti-miscegenation laws did not discriminate based on race because the prohibition against mixed-race marriage applied equally to both white and black citizens. The Court found that “the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.” Applying the same logic, the court finds that the fact of equal application to both men and women does not immunize Utah’s Amendment 3 from the heightened burden of justification that the Fourteenth Amendment requires of state laws drawn according to sex.

Because the amendment fails even on rational basis review, Shelby did not actually apply this consideration; he was simply making the point that he could have.

Claim: The Amendment Was Not Passed Out Of Animus Against Same-Sex Couples

Plaintiffs also argued that citizens voted for Amendment 3 “out of a dislike of gay and lesbian individuals,” and Shelby stopped short of agreeing with this, because “it is impossible to determine what was in the mind of each individual voter.” Nevertheless, he did conclude that the only purpose of Amendment 3 could have been to “impose inequality” upon same-sex couples:

First, the avowed purpose and practical effect of Amendment 3 is to deny the responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, which is another way of saying that the law imposes inequality. Indeed, Amendment 3 went beyond denying gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry and held that no domestic union could be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as marriage. This wording suggests that the imposition of inequality was not merely the law’s effect, but its goal.

Second, Amendment 3 has an unusual character when viewed within the historical context in which it was passed. Even though Utah already had statutory provisions that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, the State nevertheless passed a constitutional amendment t codify this prohibition. This action is only logical when viewed against the developments in Massachusetts, whose Supreme Court held in 2003 that the Massachusetts Constitution required the recognition of same-sex marriages. The Utah legislature believed that a constitutional amendment was necessary to maintain Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage because of the possibility that a Utah court would adopt reasoning similar to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and hold that the Utah Constitution already protected an individual’s right to marry a same-sex partner. Amendment 3 thereby preemptively denied rights to gay and lesbian citizens of Utah that they may have already had under the Utah Constitution.

The state may have argued there were a number of reasons to pass the amendment, and some voters may have even believed in those reasons and voted with “good intentions,” but the law was clearly passed for the sole reason of maintaining discrimination against the gay community.

Claim: Banning Same-Sex Marriage Promotes “Responsible Procreation”

The state also argued the old “responsible procreation” canard, the claim that marriage is really about incentivizing opposite-sex couples to marry if they get pregnant — especially if they do so unintentionally. Shelby found this argument to be meaningless because there was no evidence to suggest it was true. Moreover, he countered, this line of thinking actually encourages sexual activity outside of marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.

Responsible procreation may be a valid goal, but banning same-sex marriage does not contribute to it.

Claim: Opposite-Sex Couples Make Better Parents

In their court briefs, the Utah state officials argued that the debate about same-sex parenting is still on-going, citing flawed studies by Mark Regnerus and Douglas Allen to suggest that same-sex couples might make inferior parents. “The optimal heterosexual parenting rationale,” they wrote, “is at least debatable,” but the “gold standard” is an intact, biological, married family. Judge Shelby did not even bother entertaining this so-called “dispute” about parenting, however, because it wasn’t even relevant to the marriage debate:

There is no reason to believe that Amendment 3 has any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they are opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples. The State has presented no evidence that Amendment 3 furthers or restricts the ability of gay men and lesbians to adopt children, to have children through surrogacy or artificial insemination, or to take care of children that are biologically their own whom they may have had with an opposite-sex partner. Similarly, the State has presented no evidence that opposite-sex couples will base their decisions about having children on the ability of same-sex couples to marry. To the extent the State wishes to see more children in opposite-sex families, its goals are tied to laws concerning adoption and surrogacy, not marriage.

Shelby went on to highlight that the amendment actually runs counter to the state’s goals of protecting children because it limits the support available to the 3,000 children already being raised in Utah by same-sex couples — just like, as Justice Kennedy wrote, DOMA “humiliates” the children of same-sex couples.

Claim: It’s Important To Proceed With Caution On Same-Sex Marriage

The state argued it was important to proceed with caution, because “no one knows right now the precise impact same-sex marriage will have on traditional marriage, children, and society at large.” Shelby was unconvinced, noting that the state could not cite “any evidence to justify its fears.” Moreover, if “proceed with caution” were a worthy argument, the government could use it every single time a law was challenged, which “would turn the rational basis analysis into a toothless and perfunctory review.”In the conclusion of his decision, Shelby was anything but cautious when it came to explaining the harm done by the Amendment:

Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

Most credit should go to the legal editors at Think Progress. I think they did a nice job summarizing the Utah decision and argument highlights. Though I did have to do some work to format it for this board, so perhaps I'll take a little aesthetic credit.

In any case, Roman clergy and the state were not exactly separate entities. Both in the Republic and Imperial periods, the state and religion went hand in hand.

Again your ignorance of Roman history means you are making assumptions and they aren't based on a vacuum. You're filling in with the Christian model. Both in the Republic and the Empire there were 2 cults: the state cult -which insured keeping the compact between the gods and the Roman state, and the private cult -people's religion. The priestesses and priests had nothing to do with marriage. It was a private affair and the state laws handled legitimacy and heirshipp. Only with Christianity did marriage become 'religious.'

He was also a complete lunatic and not really representative of any commonly accepted norms, especially with respect to marriage.

Your opinion of Emperor Nero is irrelevant, he was the head of the Roman state and Pontifex Maximus and he was married to men 3 times. Additionally Emperor Hadrian was held in great esteem and he deified his male lover Antinous. Same-sex relationships were common and normal in Roman and Greek society.

Really? Inheritance, adoption and so on were not necessarily presided over by courts and state paperwork of any kind? Even when something was disputed did the courts not get involved?

Yes state laws as I wrote decided what constituted matrimonium and I wrote that laws could be disregarded. In terms of inheritance and adoption, the Comitia Curiata handled adoption. And adult and adoption by will (Augustus was adopted by Caesar's will as heir) were frequent ways that same-sex unions assured that their partner inherited.

So basically your objection to state sanctioned same-sex marriage is that it is a new thing and will create social disruption. I have proved it's not a new thing for the pre-Christian West. But even if it were a new thing I pointed out that women's emancipation from male tutelage in the 19th century and then women's suffrage was a new thing and created big social disruption.

Society changed, It changed when Constantine 1 took power in Rome and took women's rights away. Then society finally changed again in restoring women's rights.

You accept women's emancipation and I assume women having the vote because you were brought up that this is the norm. It is the same with gay mariage. You find it upsetting and don't want it just the same as men found the prospect of women's freedom incredibly upsetting.

Now society is changing again back to the pre-Christian Roman acceptance of same-sex relations as the norm.

Simon E, Of course the Dalai Lama is an extraordinary monk and much admired. Nevertheless he is surrounded by western celebrities who would have his ear. I very much doubt that most Tibetans would be very interested in gay marriage as they have so many other problems to mull over.I understand that everyone is an individual and longs to express what he or she really is. It seems the identity of gender is in a state of flux and many want to sink the gender boat. Apparently in Sweden there is a kindergarten experimenting with the concept of no gender, so no boy, no girl just persons ....we'll see where this leads? According to a prominent feminist, Jami Weinstein, “if biological females use the pronoun ‘he’ enough, then the power of ‘he’ as an essential category will be eroded and maybe one day ‘he’ and ‘she’ will be on an equal plane.Its interesting, its a gender bender.

Part of the point here is about the separation of religion and state. I agree with marriage for same sex couples because as tax paying citizens they should have the same rights as other tax paying citizens.

The individual religious institutipns are not being forced to perform the unions if they do not want to due to their interpretation of religious lawIn fact I think this legislation is important in that it makes clear boundaries for religious nut jobs who believe me Indrajala would shut down Buddhism in America if they could.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

I personally think the best solution to this problem is to simply stop state recognition and performance of marriage and legally recognise everyone as an individual, and stop punishing people who choose to be single by making them pay more taxes or not have hospital visitation rights to friends who they're not married to. Since the objections of people who don't agree with same-sex marriage usually are religious, this is also the only reasonable solution in the west - since church and state are supposed to be separate, why is the government recognising or not recognising religious sacraments or ceremonies?

Adi wrote: In the United States, in short, it has been conclusively proven again and again that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

I object to the use of the term 'rational' in this context. The basis of marriage has always been associated with procreation, which requires a relationship between two people of different genders, or 'gender complementarity'. Certainly such unions might not always result in children, but at least on the biological and social level, I regard 'gender-complementarity' as rational on that basis.

It is obvious that the judiciary in the United States have generally overturned this objection (with some dissenting opinions). But it is also obvious that other jurisdictions and other cultures have a completely different view of the question. By these arguments, they too must be 'irrational'. Furthermore, anyone who opposes the notion of same-sex relations, as is shown amply in this thread, is bigoted, or retrograde, or under the influence of retrogressive social philosophies, such as Confucianism. In other words, there must be something the matter with them, because they don't see reason. So by all means argue the case, but I don't think that 'reason' has much to do with it, because in this case, 'reason' is based on underlying assumptions about what, indeed, constitutes 'normality'. And what, in turn, drives those assumptions, may be far from 'rational', as the pro-creative urges often are.

Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that.

I don't intend to argue the case further, other than to say that I don't regard myself as either reactionary or bigoted. It is simply one person's opinion, which is that 'gay rights' are already provided in the Western democracies, under the freedom of association and the right to privacy. The demand for social and religious validation of same-sex relationships is another thing again, and something which I don't support.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

Zhen Li wrote:I personally think the best solution to this problem is to simply stop state recognition and performance of marriage and legally recognise everyone as an individual, and stop punishing people who choose to be single by making them pay more taxes or not have hospital visitation rights to friends who they're not married to. Since the objections of people who don't agree with same-sex marriage usually are religious, this is also the only reasonable solution in the west - since church and state are supposed to be separate, why is the government recognising or not recognising religious sacraments or ceremonies?

People are well accustomed to marriage benefits from the state and are unlikely to sacrifice them willingly, especially if it means they lose any money.

With increasing secularization and contempt for "religion" it is easy to nominally do away with religious sacraments and ceremonies, though it seems basically people still want state recognition for their unions even though those unions historically have been linked to religious sacraments.

Monogamy is just as much linked to religious values as it is to actual law (western law systems are understandably heavily based on Christian values), which is interesting because you stand to lose a lot if you have sex outside of marriage (and get caught) even in a supposed secular society. Conversely, in non-Christian societies like China and Japan prostitution services used by married persons and extramarital relationships (sexual and/or emotional) are not only common, but actually often expected, though this has changed somewhat with the younger generation which is emulating the west.

In a truly secular society "marriage" would arguably allow for multiple marriage partners, nor would people by punished by the state for having sex outside their formal unions. When we talk about child rearing by homosexuals, we inevitably have to discuss the prospects of children also being raised in polygamous communities (or any number of other fringe groups).

Despite the calls for secular ethics, the west is still largely underpinned by Christian values in many ways. Homosexuals in general want to reproduce similar models of heteronormative marriage and child rearing for themselves. Ironically, despite the common contempt for Christianity nowadays, these models of sacred state sanctioned unions are largely a product of Christian values.